Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Document the Atrocities! The American Political Media

19798100102103106

Posts

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
    Caulk Bite 6Ardoloverride367
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The worst job in the world has been found.

    Jonah Goldberg's personal unpaid intern.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    Gnome-InterruptusshrykeSCREECH OF THE FARG
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    The worst job in the world has been found.

    Jonah Goldberg's personal unpaid intern.

    Republicans are against welfare benefits so people can work to earn a living but they're also against paying people who work anything if they can avoid it

    Harry Dresden
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    The worst job in the world has been found.

    Jonah Goldberg's personal unpaid intern.

    Republicans are against welfare benefits so people can work to earn a living but they're also against paying people who work anything if they can avoid it

    But the thing is that if you're going to sell your soul, you should get a good price for it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    American News Media at work.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    They are denying the national guard members the ability to apply at state areas in direct contradiction to Chuck Hagels decree.

    http://www.tulsaworld.com/homepagelatest/oklahoma-to-defy-hagel-s-same-sex-order-at-state/article_b2720f4a-4737-11e3-a66e-001a4bcf6878.html

    Oklahoma law is clear,” Fallin said in a statement. “The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies. It protects the integrity of our state Constitution and sends a message to the federal government that they cannot simply ignore our laws or the will of the people.”

    Its bullshit, much like what Texas is doing.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • KrieghundKrieghund Registered User regular
    Who "owns" the national guard? Is the Texas National Guard funded by Texas, or can it just be moved over to New Mexico and let NM have two while Texas figures out what to do with itself?

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Technically the governor of the state is the one in charge of the national guard in the state, but like 90% of the guard's funding comes from the feds.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.

    And black people aren't being denied water fountains. They've got there own right over there!

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
    AngelHedgieshrykeCindersiTunesIsEvilMild Confusion
  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The chain was from a headline of "halts applications" (and a story that explains that they can be completed at fed offices) to a headline of "denies benefits" (and a story that explains they can be applied for and received at federal offices) to a headline of "denies benefits" and a story that actively implies that there is no alternate method to receive them ("the governor would rather prevent them from receiving their federally guaranteed benefits" or some such).

    Ridiculously misleading, and you can watch it happen. I'm on a phone, but just search for "slate Oklahoma guard" and follow the links back.

    Unless you think IOIYAD.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    What you say might be technically accurate but it leads to the same outcome.
    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.

    Accuracy would improve their credibility. Unfortunately too many media outlets deliberately want to deceive the public for their own agenda, ratings or both. People who want accuracy in reporting will watch the media less when all the media does is bullshit reporting. It's a cycle that needs to be broken.

    mcdermott
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.
    There very frequently aren't.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    The chain was from a headline of "halts applications" (and a story that explains that they can be completed at fed offices) to a headline of "denies benefits" (and a story that explains they can be applied for and received at federal offices) to a headline of "denies benefits" and a story that actively implies that there is no alternate method to receive them ("the governor would rather prevent them from receiving their federally guaranteed benefits" or some such).

    Ridiculously misleading, and you can watch it happen. I'm on a phone, but just search for "slate Oklahoma guard" and follow the links back.

    Unless you think IOIYAD.

    It's not ridiculously misleading. Oklahoma National Guard is not accepting applications. They are, therefore, denying benefits.

    The fact that they can get the benefits from someone else does not mean the ONG is not denying them.

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    I mean do I need to establish my pro-gay, liberal, Democratic, and National Guard cred to point out how fucktarded and misleading this is?
    Preacher wrote: »
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    Might want to read the story, or at least my goddamned post, because OKLAHOMA IS APPLYING IT EQUALLY TO BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.

    Still bullshit. Still a bad policy. But here we clearly see why lazy readers and lazy reporters are a fucking problem goddamn.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I mean do I need to establish my pro-gay, liberal, Democratic, and National Guard cred to point out how fucktarded and misleading this is?
    Preacher wrote: »
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    Might want to read the story, or at least my goddamned post, because OKLAHOMA IS APPLYING IT EQUALLY TO BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.

    Still bullshit. Still a bad policy. But here we clearly see why lazy readers and lazy reporters are a fucking problem goddamn.

    Yes, and WHY are they doing this suddenly?

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    Here's a fucking hint: “The state of Oklahoma does not recognize same sex marriages, nor does it confer marriage benefits to same sex couples. The decision reached today allows the National Guard to obey Oklahoma law without violating federal rules or policies."

    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    We could obviously argue reasonable driving distances. I lived too many years in Montana, perhaps, so my perception is skewed? But it's pretty clear some of you guys don't think it's misleading, and I won't convince you. I guess I'm just in the minority here.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.
    There very frequently aren't.

    But beyond that, I don't give a fuck if there are other facilities in the area. That's "colored only" nonsense, and should be treated as such.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I mean do I need to establish my pro-gay, liberal, Democratic, and National Guard cred to point out how fucktarded and misleading this is?
    Preacher wrote: »
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    Might want to read the story, or at least my goddamned post, because OKLAHOMA IS APPLYING IT EQUALLY TO BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.

    Still bullshit. Still a bad policy. But here we clearly see why lazy readers and lazy reporters are a fucking problem goddamn.

    Yes, and WHY are they doing this suddenly?

    And I state upfront that the entire state of Oklahoma is a homophobic mess. Who are you arguing with? Do you realize what point I'm trying to make? Do you understand that I don't support Oklahoma's policy?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    This isn't the gay rights thread, or the fuck Oklahoma thread. I hoped it would be obvious what I was posting in relation to.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    We could obviously argue reasonable driving distances. I lived too many years in Montana, perhaps, so my perception is skewed? But it's pretty clear some of you guys don't think it's misleading, and I won't convince you. I guess I'm just in the minority here.

    Its not misleading when they are doing this BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION! To be bigoted fuck sticks in line with their "community" values.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.
    There very frequently aren't.

    But beyond that, I don't give a fuck if there are other facilities in the area. That's "colored only" nonsense, and should be treated as such.

    It's been capitalized AND bolded. Do we need to make it blink too?

    The policy is universal.

  • SyphonBlueSyphonBlue Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I mean do I need to establish my pro-gay, liberal, Democratic, and National Guard cred to point out how fucktarded and misleading this is?
    Preacher wrote: »
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    Might want to read the story, or at least my goddamned post, because OKLAHOMA IS APPLYING IT EQUALLY TO BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.

    Still bullshit. Still a bad policy. But here we clearly see why lazy readers and lazy reporters are a fucking problem goddamn.

    Yes, and WHY are they doing this suddenly?

    And I state upfront that the entire state of Oklahoma is a homophobic mess. Who are you arguing with? Do you realize what point I'm trying to make? Do you understand that I don't support Oklahoma's policy?

    Okay so let's follow this thread

    1. Oklahoma is being blatantly homophobic

    2. Oklahoma decides that, rather than offer benefits to same sex couples, they're just going to stop offering benefits to EVERYONE

    3. News article reports "Oklahoma Drops National Guard Benefits For All Couples To Avoid Serving Same-Sex Couples "

    4. ????

    5. mdermott: They're not doing that!!!!

    SyphonBlue on
    LxX6eco.jpg
    PSN/Steam/NNID: SyphonBlue | BNet: SyphonBlue#1126
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    We could obviously argue reasonable driving distances. I lived too many years in Montana, perhaps, so my perception is skewed? But it's pretty clear some of you guys don't think it's misleading, and I won't convince you. I guess I'm just in the minority here.

    No, you can't argue reasonable driving distances, because that has the implicit element of "hey, it's okay to treat people as second class citizens".

    Your whole argument is PolitiFactesque.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I think I just watched a game of "media telephone" happen.

    I started at the end, with Slate's "Oklahoma to deny all National Guard couple benefits to avoid giving them to gay couples" story. Horrifying!

    The piece leads to a Think Progress post with an equally horrifying headline, but which explains (in the body) that the state is no longer processing applications for benefits...they have no authority to "deny" them, instead this means that servicemembers must go to a federal installation to be processed (there are several in OK). This is still bad, of course. But distinctly different than the headline implies, and which the entire Slate story runs with.

    The TP article, of course, links back to a Tulsa outlet with the more accurate (but less sensational) headline that the state is halting applications, not denying benefits. The only "benefit" being denied is the ability to apply for the federal benefits at a state office.

    Now, obviously I think OK's governor, legislature, and most of their electorate are awful. I hope in don't need to make that clear , but just in case. But watching this story morph in just two steps from one thing into something else entirely just makes me sad. It reminds me that this isn't just a conservative problem. Because if all I read was the Slate post, or the TP headline, now I probably walk away thinking something that is entirely untrue.

    No longer processing applications is de facto denying.

    Not when there are offices within reasonable driving distance to file the same application, and be approved. The state has no authority to deny the benefits, they're just making the Feds do the paperwork.

    But I suppose we see here why our media is what it is. Serving the customer what they want.

    Fuck accuracy.
    There very frequently aren't.

    But beyond that, I don't give a fuck if there are other facilities in the area. That's "colored only" nonsense, and should be treated as such.

    It's been capitalized AND bolded. Do we need to make it blink too?

    The policy is universal.

    One, it was only made universal because they weren't allowed to discriminate.

    Two, there are other states with same sex marriage bans that nonetheless have acquiesced to the order from DOD.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    We could obviously argue reasonable driving distances. I lived too many years in Montana, perhaps, so my perception is skewed? But it's pretty clear some of you guys don't think it's misleading, and I won't convince you. I guess I'm just in the minority here.

    Its not misleading when they are doing this BY THEIR OWN ADMISSION! To be bigoted fuck sticks in line with their "community" values.

    The headline isn't "Oklahoma is bigoted." That would be accurate. You seem to misunderstand my issue

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    SyphonBlue wrote: »
    mcdermott wrote: »
    I mean do I need to establish my pro-gay, liberal, Democratic, and National Guard cred to point out how fucktarded and misleading this is?
    Preacher wrote: »
    So unlike straight couples who get to file those benefits at state offices they are forcing people to drive somewhere else to get it done because of their orientation. Seperate but equal eh mcdermott?

    Might want to read the story, or at least my goddamned post, because OKLAHOMA IS APPLYING IT EQUALLY TO BOTH STRAIGHT AND GAY COUPLES.

    Still bullshit. Still a bad policy. But here we clearly see why lazy readers and lazy reporters are a fucking problem goddamn.

    Yes, and WHY are they doing this suddenly?

    And I state upfront that the entire state of Oklahoma is a homophobic mess. Who are you arguing with? Do you realize what point I'm trying to make? Do you understand that I don't support Oklahoma's policy?

    Okay so let's follow this thread

    1. Oklahoma is being blatantly homophobic

    2. Oklahoma decides that, rather than offer benefits to same sex couples, they're just going to stop offering benefits to EVERYONE

    3. News article reports "Oklahoma Drops National Guard Benefits For All Couples To Avoid Serving Same-Sex Couples "

    4. ????

    5. mdermott: They're not doing that!!!!

    Oklahoma doesn't offer the benefits. Uncle Sam does. Oklahoma was just processing the applications.

    The only benefit dropped was processing the paperwork. Which can be processed elsewhere.

    Any way you slice it it's benefit, singular, that's being denied. The article is misleading.

    The original article still somehow manages to be critical of the policy, without being misleading.

  • PreacherPreacher Registered User regular
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.

    Http:// pleasepaypreacher.net
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    But half of you seem to misunderstand the point entirely, the other half seem fine with the distortion, so like I said...our political media.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    A liberal advocacy blog is not exactly the media to begin with.

    EDIT: Well, more to the point, the blog of the Center for American Progress. Heritage's blog is also something I would not consider the media, but an arm of the Democratic Party.

    Admittedly defining what is and isn't media is hard, but I would consider them not part of it.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    The particular ideology of the story (or underlying policy) was irrelevant to me, is my point.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    A liberal advocacy blog is not exactly the media to begin with.

    EDIT: Well, more to the point, the blog of the Center for American Progress. Heritage's blog is also something I would not consider the media, but an arm of the Democratic Party.

    Admittedly defining what is and isn't media is hard, but I would consider them not part of it.

    I figured Slate (barely) qualified.

    Even if it's in one of their blog sections.

    Squidget0
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited November 2013
    Slate is just stupid. They're not anything else.

    EDIT: I apparently skimmed over your mentioning them. I still say not media, just stupid.

    Though as we've seen with the major political story of the month, when states stop doing things and force it on the feds, this can lead to bad things happening and people falling through the cracks and it's just general bullshit. And my suspicion is that there are not a TON of federal things in Oklahoma. And yes your opinion is skewed because you're from Montana.

    Though SCOTUS would hold that there's no undue burden here, because fuck Roe, that's why.

    enlightenedbum on
    Herbert Hoover got 40% of the vote in 1932. Friendly reminder.
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Slate is just stupid. They're not anything else.

    EDIT: I apparently skimmed over your mentioning them. I still say not media, just stupid.

    Though as we've seen with the major political story of the month, when states stop doing things and force it on the feds, this can lead to bad things happening and people falling through the cracks and it's just general bullshit. And my suspicion is that there are not a TON of federal things in Oklahoma. And yes your opinion is skewed because you're from Montana.

    Though SCOTUS would hold that there's no undue burden here, because fuck Roe, that's why.

    I'd agree that slate is generally stupid. But it appears that many here in this case don't agree. So I feel like this is an issue.

    Anyway, Oklahoma has like four active duty installations, which are near like 98% of the population (I'd think Tulsa, OKC, and Lawton alone cover that). Any way you slice it, I feel like it's a distortion of the facts of the issue.

    I feel like the issue can be criticized without doing so.

    But I guess I'm just weird here. No worries.

    Gnome-Interruptus
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Preacher wrote: »
    Whining about semantics to complain about liberal media bias, I know full god damn well your issue.

    I am not complaining about liberal media bias. IM A LIBERAL.

    I'm complaining about distortion in the political media, and thought I'd found a fun example where you could watch it happen step by step.

    I honestly didn't even expect this to be controversial.

    The point is that a lot of us don't see the distortion. Just because OKNG members can still go to federal facilities to get their benefits processed doesn't change that the governor has decreed that they can no longer do so at NG facilities as they had been able to, or that the reason she did so was because the feds told her that no, she couldn't just block same sex couples.

    There's also the fact that you tried to defend your pedantry with the "reasonable distance" argument, which is just the "separate but equal" pig with some new lipstick. To paraphrase Zoidberg, your position is bad and you should feel bad for holding it.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
This discussion has been closed.